The single judge dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of a bank's auction sale notice. The court held the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was merely a lessee and an alternative remedy lay under the SARFAESI Act.
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.10125 OF 2013
ORDER: (per Ms. Justice G. Rohini)
The petitioner claims to be a lessee in respect of the premises in question, which is brought to sale invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”).
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents – State Bank of India in issuing Tender-cum-Auction Sale Notice for sale of the premises bearing Door No.27-21-48 & 49 at Vijayawada is arbitrary and illegal.
We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
Admittedly the tender forms in pursuance of the sale notice were already issued and it appears that the tenders received are scheduled to be opened today. Thus the sale proceedings are already in progress. Even according to the petitioner he is only a lessee of the premises in question. Therefore it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no need for issuing any notice to the person in occupation. It is further contended that since the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued long back and even the possession of the property in question was taken under Section13 (4) of the Act, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that even assuming that the writ petitioner is aggrieved, he should have availed the remedy available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as provided under Section 17 of the Act.
Having regard to the admitted fact that the petitioner is only a lessee in respect of the property in question and moreover an alternative remedy is available under the Act, we find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Hence we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
So far as the plea of the petitioner that he may be permitted to continue
in possession of the shops in question till the tender process is finalized is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to make such request before the respondent, in which event he may consider the same in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________ G. ROHINI,J
______________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR,J
Date: 04.04.2013 Gk/gbs.
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.10125 OF 2013
Dated:04.04.2013
Gk/gbs.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging an illegal sale notice by a bank is maintainable when the petitioner is only a lessee and alternative remedial proceedings under the Act are pending or initiated.
Whether a lessee in possession of premises subject to a sale under the SARFAESI Act can challenge the sale proceedings via a writ petition.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
The Petitioner
State Bank of India
G. ROHINI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
